Message Board

No, don't bother to clean your glasses, you did not read the title wrongly. I initially did not want to post this, but Jaspreet insists... Sorry, its a little longer than what I would normally post... Feel free to ignore...Once again, I find myself blindly surfing the Internet. And once again, fate leads me to Adrina's blog. She is a friend of mine. Maybe cause her blog always provokes me to type something, or maybe cause my finger itchy.

Anyways, before I start getting to the meat, I just want to say... CLAYMORE IS A F**KING COOL MANGA/ANIME AND EVERYONE SHOULD DITCH NARUTO/BLEACH/WTV AND GO READ IT!!!

Ok, anyways, I have decided to waste my time typing a response to the discussion put forth by Adrina, which is, What is the Purpose of Armpit hair? Here is a portion of her post, for those too lazy to click and wait for the page to load.

I'd like to think that everything in this world is created for a purpose. From the important stuff like oxygen, trees and water to the more trivial ones like the birds and the bees (pun intended).

Heck, I can even think of the purpose of wrinkles. Women with wrinkles symbolize old age, that they are not as fertile as the wrinklesless and therefore, potential mates would not be easily attracted to them.

But, why the hell do we have armpit hair?? I would understand if it guys we're talking about; they would claim that armpit hair makes them look more macho and manly. But what about us girls? We are always trying to get rid of these fugly unwanted hair. Some of those who are lucky may find that they do not have it. But most of us do as soon as we reach puberty!!

It makes us uglier, but not ugly enough to scare of rapists. If it's a little bit uglier, we can use it to scare them (the potential rapists) off. Hehe, imagine someone trying to rape you and all you're trying to do is to open your arms wide enough to show him your armpit hair. And once visible, the rapist would cover his eyes with his hands because the ugliness is hurting his eyeballs. That's when you use the opportunity to kick him in the nuts and run away.

But no! Armpit hair has to be of of medium ugliness. It's like God (assuming that there is one) was halfway creating mankind and something more important cropped up that he left us with that pile of unwanted fugly hair.

Or maybe there is use for armpit hair after all. Does anyone know? Can you enlighten me? If not I will continue to stand by my notion that armpit hair is useless and does not deserve its place in this world. This world is already so saturated with unwanted waste and pollution substances that we do not need any more useless things.

As an overview, lets just look at the points put forth by Adrina. She claims that its apparently useless to girls, as they make them fugly, and can potentially scare off rapists with them. And for the guys, its supposedly a macho sex symbol or something.

Lets take a look at the 'useless' aspect. To first confirm if its useless or not, we must hence first make sure that is it useful or not. To see if the armpit hair is useful or not, we must first have a general idea on the the purpose of hair.

As we all know, and learned from Science Form 3, hair on the skin is meant to keep us warm, due to the accumulation of air space between them, which is a heat insulator and so prevents lose of heat. Hence, it is necessary to have hair on the head/chest/arms/legs, to reduce this lose.

Now, taking into account the armpit, it is very evident that that location is a MAJOR source of heat lose/ contains a lot of blood vessels. Why? Cause it sweats a LOT. Even when we walk around, and our head haven't start sweating, already our armpits are sweating. Hence, it is therefore necessary to have hair on the armpit to prevent this lose. To further reinforce my point, lets take the head as an example. Its a major heat sink, as our brain is there, and it works 24/7 and looses more heat than any part of the body, its only obvious that it is also the part of our entire body that is most concentrated in hair.Ok, that sounds contradictory, but what I mean is that the armpit loses lots of heat, cause there is lots of blood there, and it sweats to cool it down, but the hair is there to prevent excessive lose, IF it is cold. Capiche?

Hence, I proved my point that armpit hairs are first and foremost, NOT useless, as it serves a purpose, no matter how obscure it is. Ya, we don't really need hair on our legs as well (some people don't have them) and in Malaysia, we don't even need hair at all since we don't exactly need to conserve heat, its a f**king natural oven here. But heck, its there, for a reason.

Some of you may rebut that instead of helping to conserve heat, they actually INDUCE the lose of heat, due to friction when running, walking, swinging your hand and stuff. Yes, I agree that marathon runners DO shave their armpit hairs to do so, but if you ask me, unless you enjoy wearing a f**king leotard when running/walking/shopping, or you walk with your hand sticking to your torso like R2D2, I see no reason why they should do so.

Next, regarding the concept of it being fugly to women and macho to men, I think that its all a matter of point of view, or personal preference, rather than a widely accepted opinion. First off, I don't think its macho on men. If that is so, every female should be clinging to the mamak stall uncle near my place who also incidentally have a ton of chest hair, rather than the near hairless Keanu Reeves.

Besides that, ya, its not exactly sexually attractive on the girls, but you can say the exact same thing about pubic hair. Go here (don't click if you are underaged or easily offended or is a 'yer, pr0n is disgustiiing...' b*tch/d*ck) and you can see tons of westerners complaining about pubic hair in their asian pr0n clips. Apparently, to them, its disgusting. But we don't exactly hear girls HERE complaining about their pubic hair, or questioning if they should shave it or not, do we? Yes, they do question those in the states, watch American Pie 3...

So once more, no, this is NOT to rebut Adrina's blog, but I just think I should respond regarding the uselessness of armpit hair, and also regarding the subjective unattractiveness of them. OMG, don't get me wrong, armpit hairs do NOT turn me on...

Erm, ass is grass = really hairy butt? Haha, I was about to type 'Can I take a picture of that?'! And no thanks to the idea of clinging to Shine's mamak stall uncle... I prefer clinging to my camera for my dear life!

Ah yes, I have a question. Do you guys prefer girls with shaved/waxed legs? I asked because a male friend once told me natural is better, while another argued that women look terrible with hairy legs.

Armpit hair has no use for humans. It's just a pain and nothing else. Body hair has also no use. All these hair are actually vestigial, we inherited them from our ape ancestors (evolution is a fact). Those apes needed the hair for insulation. We have clothes so hair serves no purpose. In many generations to come these hair will no longer grow on humans. So, guys don't be ashamed to shave off all your body hair or going for hair removal. Girls, just continue shaving or go for hair removal.

Anyway, I think a girl with shaved/waxed legs is more attractive. Most guys surely have this opinion.

(joe): The theory of evolution is very much an accepted fact in the scientific community. There's ample prove of evolution. Fossilised remains point out the ancestors of many of today's creatures including mankind. Naturalist witnessed the birth of a new species of weed in England a few years ago. The genetic blueprint of many creatures point out to evolution. To disagree with evolution is akin to disowning science and thus all our technological progress.

Many who disagree with evolution have come out with totally ridiculous justifications. One of the funniest is dinosaur fossils are put in the ground by the Lord to test the faith of believers. I hope nobody here is like that. Evolution must not be seen as damaging to religion at all. Instead it must be incorporated into it just like all our scientific and technological progress. The times where science is discredited must end altogether. Celebrate progress!

Absolutely Shiny-Boy! You guys have seen the debate we had in Bio Class last year... (i sucked, forgot my lines ;P) But it was still fun... ;D

[Albert] To try and summarize, Mr. Jaya's evolution "theory" goes like this...I believe in evolution, but i also believe in intelligent design. We have a common ancestor to other primates but that doesn't necessarily mean were all the descendants of monkeys, billions of years of evolution has caused both species to differ greatly, but the relationship is still apparent. God created man; but maybe, just maybe He based His designs on a "previous model"(apes).

As for the fossils as a test of faith... Does got really intend to test you? I think not... He just wants us all to make the right choice.

-Life is a journey, not an exam--J. S. Kwatra, 2007-

P.S. [Albert] your statement on hairy legs, though meritable, i believe is influenced by fashion a little too much. Style and fashion are different and separate, to be stylish is not necessarily to be fashionable and vice versa.

-Fashion is the minority telling the majority to look stupid--J. S. Kwatra, 2007-

(arbitrary juggernaut): Life on Earth is 1 billion years old so forget it, there were no monkeys billions of years ago. They started to come around about 60 million years ago. Back then they were like the aye-aye, bush baby or tarsier. Then they became like lemurs. Then came the tailed monkeys. Fast forward a few million years ago the first tailless ape came up. They were like the gibbons. Soon they had one that looked like a primitive orang utan like creature. This is the common ancestor of humans (homo sapiens and all the other homos), orang utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos. We are all as a matter of fact, descended from monkeys and if you are ashamed shake a chimp's hand.

If fashion is the minority telling the majority to look stupid then no sane person will be wearing jeans or normal professional attire.-Albert WKT, 2007-

(shine): Another idiotic statement is that life is not millions of years old because the results radiocarbon dating is the Devil making people lose faith in God. Fools who make such statements make mockery of Christianity which saddens me as a Christian.

(then again maybe i exaggerated, i think he said millions... not billions)

As for fashion and style... what is fashionable isn't always stylish, a Distressed Angora-yarn Demi Poncho for example...

Another example to differentiate style and fashion...Peirce Brosnan is stylish.Dolche & Gabbana is fashionable.

Jeans, in my opinion at least, has evolved beyond the bindings of petty fashion. I doubt they will ever go out of style...But at the same time, no sane designer would ever consider jeans "Fashionable" at the expense of his/her carrier in the industry. Gauche' is the word they describe Jeans with i think.

[albert] & [joe]: Your debate here is perfectly understandable. We have, in or midst, individuals who favour the Theory of Evolution (as proposed by Charles Darwin) and individuals who favour the Theory of Creationism, as suggested by the Bible.

On the 18th of December 2005, I wrote about Theory of Evolution versus Theory of Creationism in my blog (post: Science. This issue became such a heated debate in the USA that it was even featured in National Geographic Channel.

We can see here that Albert tends to lean towards the Theory of Evolution, in favour of Charles Darwin's theory. Joe, on the other hand, favours the Theory of Creationism.

But is this debate founded on the same ground? Perhaps so, and perhaps not.

You see, the Theory of Evolution was proposed based on scientific evidences that could possibly link us back to our primal ancestors. It is due to the Theory of Evolution that scientists had the audacity to say that chimpanzees are are closest relatives. This is from a scientific point of view.

The Theory of Creationism, on the other hand, is written based on the teachings of the Bible. This theory is based on faith and is written by men of faith. The Theory of Creationism is very much closely linked to the Book of Genesis, which was written by none other than Moses.

There are always two sides to the same story, and the story here now is our origins. One is founded on the Holy Bible and another is founded on The Origin of Species. One is written by men of faith, the other by men of science. There are many times when science and faith cannot coincide with one another, and vice versa.

Nevertheless, keeping an open mind, we shall be able to learn to accept both theories. As science and faith may often conflict with one another, let us keep two minds, one in favour of faith and one in favour of science. Let us see things from both perspectives. That is how I could accept both theories. Personally, I side neither theories. You may think I have no stand but I do. Scientifically, I favour the Theory of Evolution. But by faith, I also favour the Theory of Creationism equally.

Joe (I suppose) strictly believes that everything is created for a purpose. As he favours the Theory of Creationism and refutes the Theory of Evolution, and as he is firm towards his faith, he believes that God's creation is nothing sort of just merely a plaything. His views on this matter is justified.

Albert, on the other hand, holds on firm that as time goes on, as we no longer depend on some parts of our body, we will gradually shed them off from our genes. Thus, as we are clothed, we depend less on our own hair for insulation. Scientifically, this is true and his scientific views on this matter is equally justified.

Just answer me this question: Is this world about 5000 years old (plus seven days) or more than 250 million years old? The answer you give reflects which side you favour, faith or science.

So, Creationism vs Evolution. It's a terrible clash of ideas actually. Had there been a real debate, it will come to no end as both sides will always uphold to what they believe.

But, had the debate been focusing on both elements individually, that is, a debate on Creationism and a debate on Evolution separately, then we could see a more promising debate.

Note, all this while, I have been referring to both Creationism and Evolution as "THEORY of Creationism" and "THEORY of Evolution". Theories can very much remain as theories (such as Einstein's many theories regarding relativity) but many theories are also theories that have been proven by thorough observations.

There is no point in trying to convince anybody to side either Creationism or Evolution. Much depends on faith and believing. Some do not need to see to believe, many others do.

Still, it's all really up to you to decide whether you side the Theory of Creationism or Theory of Evolution. Not many people can favour both theories; there is a tendency that one will side one of the elements and reject the other (often point blank).

Just my two cents.

P/S: This comment is self-moderated. Some further discussions have been omitted from this comment as it involves more insightful points that will touch religion sentiments and can be deemed offensive to certain parties. As such, if you wish to know my extensive view on this matter, you could send me an e-mail or talk to me about it in campus.

Not Us!

Please refer to the Creative Commons Deed in the sidebar for a human-readable license regarding the alteration, reuse, and/or redistribution of material displayed on this blog.

RANDTS is not officially affiliated to any person, race, enterprise, group, country, or planet in any way. Posts' content should not be taken seriously unless stated otherwise by the blogger(s) in question.

The RANDTS team shall not be held liable for any damages supposedly caused by the post(s) here; physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, reputational or imaginary. Any offence caused is unintentional and duly regretted by the blogger(s).

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

RANDTS-Buttons

Credits

Copyright 2006 | Blogger Templates by GeckoandFly.
Modified and converted to Blogger Beta by Blogcrowds |
Edited by Maverick.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior
written permission.